Can I ask why this is important now? Not like it has been an issue since 2001… ;-) I am really just a bit curious. This looks like something we put together on the OVAL Board. There was a reason we did so there that may not be all that valuable here. The
intent was to assure promotion of OVAL and at the same time we were seeing a growing numberer of companies asking to have more that one representative. We wanted to: (From the OVAL Board info)

In an effort to guard against organizational bias, a single organization may
be represented by a maximum of two individuals with the expectation that one individual would be focused on strategic direction and the other individual would be focused more on technical decisions.

We also only allowed one vote per organization because not all organizations had two members. In
reality the process cost us a good participating individual. We had a situation where one organization ended up with three people and the organization decided who would be on the list. This meant we lost one of the more consistent contributors while keeping
less a participating member.

I have always felt the CVE Editorial Board not to be organizationally-based but rather based on the individuals who have contributed to this community
and to CVE. Yes, because we have more than one person from specific companies, the voting process needs to use the organizational slant to reduce the possibility of
organizational bias in the vote results but I have always viewed the Board not as an organizational responsibility but a personal one because of my belief in the value of CVE.

Recommending two people from each company seems to bloat and dilute the Board. By injecting those who are not as passionate about CVE and its value, we end up with individuals who look at this more as a resume item instead of a personal responsibility
to the community.